This Comic Will Make You Wonder What “You” Even Means

What Does This Comic Mean, Man?

This comic explores the philosophical problem of personal identity. The question of “what makes me me?” seems straightforward enough, but upon investigation, one finds (perhaps surprisingly) that the issues are quite complex, and that little consensus exists as to what makes a person a person, what it takes for a person to persist in time, etc.

Philosophers have been debating this issue for centuries, and as with so many things into which one digs deeply, there don’t appear to be easy or absolute answers. For a great survey of the history of thought surrounding questions of personal identity, I highly recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s article on the topic.

The comic above captures perfectly the philosophical conundrum of being unsure of how to define oneself and raises the stakes to the level of absurdity by featuring a protagonist who decides that he is comprised of countless selves, and that each successive self dies each night when he goes to sleep. Eventually, the comic transitions fairly smoothly from considerations of personal identity to considerations of how best to derive a sense of meaning from life.

After entering the teleportation machine to begin a new life, the protagonist decides that “there could be no grand meaning in a life so short, nor in a longer one.” After declaring life to be void of any essential or overarching meaning, the man rebukes his past selves for living lives of pure hedonism, asserting that the problem of meaninglessness could not be overcome by such an approach.

Thereafter, in a quintessentially existentialist transformation, the man creates his own meaning—i.e. wills his own values and finds his own meaning in the details of his daily life. Consistent work, kindness, and philanthropy become the cornerstones of his existence. And on his deathbed, despite (we assume) still feeling that life has no grand meaning, the man reflects fondly on his memories and feels contented, grateful for the life he has led. Despite seeing life as void of absolute meaning, the man finds a “truth which is truth for [him],” as Kierkegaard put it:

“… the crucial thing is to find a truth which is truth for me, to find the idea for which I am willing to live and die.”

Why I Love Existential Comics

To my knowledge, this was the first comic ever published online by Corey Mohler of Existential Comics (my favorite webcomic). As I’ve written elsewhere:

For quite some time now I’ve been enjoying and sharing Existential Comics, a webcomic about existentialism and other areas of philosophy. For me, Existential Comics embodies the enormous potential for entertainment and education to meld seamlessly on the Internet.

Corey Mohler, the dude behind Existential Comics, successfully takes arcane philosophical ideas and elucidates them clearly and humorously via the medium of the webcomic. This is the sort of innovative educational idea that has the potential to appeal to attention-fractured youth and to further distinguish learning from the super-serious, one-size-fits-all stuff that most of us did in school. Education can be play, after all.

Get the top 5 thought-provoking posts in your inbox weeky!

DailyWeekly

Books on These Topics

If you’re interested in further considering the issue of personal identity, I highly recommend Alan Watts’ The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are, which offers a brilliant perspective on the topic. If you’re interested in further considering existentialism and the idea that we create our own meaning in life, I recommend Man’s Search for Meaningby Viktor Frankl, which considers the author’s experiences in a concentration camp during the Holocaust and is probably the most accessible introduction to existentialism I’ve come across.

I love this comic. I was thinking about the same idea for along time thanks to reading sci-fi, and thanks to asking myself “how can i be me”. Not who am i, but how can i exist? Why is it that I am conscious, and I’m not anyone else. Is everyone conscious?

And in the past weeks I’m slowly coming to realize that “I” don’t exist. Sure, there are atoms that make up the brain and thebody. There’s the mind thinking things, and there’s the realization that the mind knows about itself. It is self aware and conscious. But is that me? No, not really, because i can’t control the brain. It feels like i’m in charge of the brain, but i’m not. The brain just came up with the idea of me to have someone behind all the things that it does, but in reality it’s just the brain doing whatever.
If that makes sense, great. If not then just ask yourself a question: is there a you? Where? Find it? Describe it? Is it really there? Keep looking if there is, you might be pleasantly surprised at the end.

great comment, Albyn. really reminds me of the perspective of Alan Watts.

my take on it is very similar. i think that in the deepest sense, our individual identities are illusory constructs, a kind of game of selfhood that we’re playing that is nonetheless totally real from a subjective point of view and can be profoundly meaningful. on the deepest level though, i think we are all the same thing — the basic stuff of existence, the ocean of reality, choose your metaphor.

If the brain came up with the idea of “you”, isn’t “you” then the brain, don’t “you” exist then? aren’t “You” in control if you’re the brain and the brain is the one doing “whatever” – putting another word instead of You (in this case “brain”) doesn’t refrain You from existing, You exist my friend and you have plenty of control, use it wisely.. ;-)

That’s the thing. I am not the brain because if I was I should know what’s going on, and I should be able to control the brain. But can I? It feels like it sometimes, but mostly the brain does whatever it wants. Being it daydreaming, negative thoughts “I” don’t want to have or just distraction from what “I” want to do.

It’s kind of hard to explain it, but let’s clarify few things first. I’d say I’m not the whole brain, but I’m only a part of it. The part that is also conscious and aware of itself. Do you agree with this? If not, why not? In what way are you different?

From this, we move further, and we can basically say the brain created “me” and gave this “me” control over some parts of the mind. Agreed? If not, why?
(you might say that I was not created by the brain, and I might agree, but in that case. Who did? And if no one, and I was just born, then it means this “me” exists inside the brain somehow)

But this is not what you said. You said I am the brain, and therefore it makes no difference which name I use because we’re the same, and we’re both in charge.
So which is it? Do you still think you’re the brain and the names are interchangeable?

Btw, if you move even further, then you have “me” (or “you” actually) which is created by the brain, which means that it is separate from it, but how can it be separate? Unless there’s something beyond this world, some higher consciousness or whatever (which I will assume isn’t) then how can I be different from the brain? I was created by it, I am in control some parts of it, yet I’m something else, and something more.
For me, something doesn’t fit. If it does for you, please let me know :)

I think you misunderstood the idea of “not being”. In some ways it doesn’t change a thing, whoever is in control is still in control. Let’s say “I” don’t exist. Will it change anything with the way this mind-body connection (=atoms working together) behaves? Hell no! Why should it? Just because the brain throws one of its beliefs away doesn’t mean it will stop working. The brain made up another being (=me), the being felt in control, but then the brain realized that this being is just an idea. It makes no sense to assume that by disproving this being the brain stops being in control. And it still has the same values, ideas, needs and wants.

I would agree that we only have partial control, cause yeah there’s a level to the brain/mind that comes up with things I have no idea where is coming from I absolutely grant you that, but maybe I’m reading you wrong but to me it seems like you’re putting it forward like the “brain” is in control and “you” are just some small part created by the brain for the illusion of control – whereas I see it much more like controlling a car, “you” might only have the steering wheel, the pedals and the gearstick but with that you are controlling where to go, when to go faster/slower when to rev the engine and when to cruise in 5th.. there’s alot of different other processes going on in the car that you have no control over, but I’d say if I had to pick some that’s the ones I would go with.. So if the brain “created” me, which is an assumption you’re making (I think I would put more like, the brain realized that it was “me” during experiences growing up) but either way, then that “me” – in my view – would be to identify the boss of the company – sure there are underlying working processes, but “you” – as the boss – can influence those processes by active engagement with those processes.. You can even order up thoughts and images of your own – try imagining a purple elephant jumping into a green river, and boom, the brain follows your command – I’d say that’s control..

But to try and narrow it down further, I would say we’re talking about two issues here,
1. free will (which it basically sounds like you’re denying(?) and that I’m advocating)
2. the definition of “you” (which you seem to say is a illusionary construct by the “thing” in control of your free will(?) – where I’d due to my belief in free will is leaning towards a mindly representation of the individual entity and the experiences that I’ve had in this very weird existence)

On a post note, I agree very strongly with your feeling of something not fitting I too feel there’s another level to this existence, but I also do feel that I have control over my existence (to some extent of course ;-))

I think we misunderstand each other a bit. Probably my fault though, I’m not entirely sure how to explain it.

Let’s start with the thing that the me was created by the brain. In your view the brain realized there is me, but the funny thing is that before this happened you were doing fine. There was no need for you to be there, the mind/body connection worked just fine. Why is it needed now? Everything else after this is just silly and pointless actually. Just tell me, why is the self needed now? Why should it be there? Without it, the brain would still have the same thoughts and desires. Like I said, I don’t think I exist, but I’m far from being without needs and wants. Just without self that is useless, and in some cases actually stands in the way.

Another thing is that I’m in no way denying free will. I know it seems strange, but there is free will, but there’s no you who has it. The brain does though. Same as it had the free will and control when you were young, and didn’t know (or didn’t have) “you”.

The car is actually a great example. The problem with that is the driver and the car exist separately. The driver can do a lot of things, the car can’t do much without a driver, but it can be anyone or anything. They exist separately. On the other hand “you” don’t exist separately. You exist (if you do) only within the mind/body.For me it’s more like the Google cars. They are regular cars, but someone put into them the desire to move, and all the information to do it. Then the car moves itself. I think humans are like that except one thing: the desire to move is created inside the car itself, and there’s no external influence.
The thing about the car is that this implies that there’s something beyond the mind/body, something that is not part of the same reality as the car, which is kind of weird. From the view of the car, the car has some values (size, color…), and just sits on the street, and then drives uses it to do things. Which is fine, but that’s not how we work. The brain is not just a tool, it has its own things to do. For example, you can create a thought, but can you stop it? Can you order your brain: “don’t do this. Don’t think about it”
If you can good for you. If you can’t who is really in control?

Nah don’t think it’s your fault, this is complicated stuff, I think words are probably insufficient to communicate what strange concepts we have in our heads ;-)

I think I’m getting my head better around what you’re getting at, cause yeah obviously there must have been movement/animation before I became self-aware, which I would think is the point that the “me/you” is created/realized and memories starts being stocked in relation to this realization.. So yes there is a period where the body functions/learns/evolves without a “me/you”, in what I would refer to as a more primitive/primordial state of being – which I’m guessing is what you mean is the brain-state that exists beneath the “you”?
But I still think the creation/realization of “me/you” is a “natural” part of the brain evolving, synapses being created, externalities being interpreted/understood, as well as body motorskills being developed (including limits of control = this body) – so I still see the “me/you” as a integrated “part” of the brain not as something separate.. You ask why is the self needed, I think the self is needed in order to be self-aware – it’s implied in the word itself.. how could there be thoughts if there wasn’t this “I” to percieve them, sounds to me like saying there is light without any eyes to see it..

Hmm I’m sorry that makes no sense to me, if “you” don’t have free will, then that’s not free will.. I still think I’m having trouble envisioning that separation between the brain and “you” that you’re proposing..

I get twist with the google car, but I think the pivotal point is as you say “the desire to move is created inside the car/human itself” – I would say from that we should be able to make a stance on free will, either “I/me/you” decides consciously to move (free will) or the “brain/deeper level of instinct/don’t know what to call this creation of yours ;-)” makes the decision, sends the order, “me/you” becomes aware of the decision to move (that “it” thinks it just took) and then moves (not free will) – how would you describe this movement-decision-process with your concept?

I’m not gonna sit here and say that I’m in total control of my thoughts, cause that would be a lie, but the “STOP”-technique works quite good for me.. (when I catch my mind thinking negative/ not-constructive thoughts, I think of a loud voice shouting “STOP” and usually the flow stops and I can distract my thinking with other thoughts)

I think I understand the level at which you think the separation exists, but to me I still can’t see that separation..

What I’m trying to say that there’s no brain-state beneath you. There’s just the state, and the you adds nothing to it. There’s “me” sitting here, writing this, but there’s no need for “me” to be here. I could say there is the writing and the sitting, and it wouldn’t make any difference. It would actually be a better description.

You think that the “primordial state of being”, the one without realization is primitive. Something that can be much more, but for me this primordial state is just a state that can go any way. There’s nothing primitive in the minds of kids. Sure, there are limits, but those limits are simply because of the lack of experience and knowledge, not because they are not self-aware, and have a self. I think that a kid without “self” could not only be self-aware (exactly as a lot fo people who realized there is no you), and could also have the same evolved thinking the humans are so proud of. Having the self is not an advantage in order to have higher (more evolved/advanced) thinking.

“how could there be thoughts if there wasn’t this “I” to percieve them, sounds to me like saying there is light without any eyes to see it..”
That’s exactly it. Before the self-awareness, before the self, there were still things to experience. Light, sounds and so on. There were also thoughts about all this because that’s what the brain is for- thinking, labeling, finding patterns. The only difference is that there no I attached to them. But this I adds nothing to the experience. It doesn’t have to be there.
It’s like making a video of something, and instead of using the phone, and watching the real thing you make the video and watch the event on the screen. Sure, you can do it, but it changes the way you perceive things because it’s not real. It’s just a recording of the real thing. This is the I for me. The I are the lens that changes our view of world, and the phone through which we look at the world.
Instead of just words being spoken, you hear insults, and comments about you, and then feel offended.

Why wouldn’t it be free will? Free will is the ability to choose your actions. Why shouldn’t the brain be able to make decisions on its own? It does it for example when you go to sleep. The brain still works and controls your body. It’s just not you, who’s in control. When you are awake, the brain doesn’t lose any of its capabilities (more like the opposite). The question is if it’s in charge.

I would describe exactly as you said! :-D
The brain comes up with the idea of moving somewhere, but because the self-illusion is so strong, the self immediately assumes it was its idea. It just happens automatically, because it has been happening for so long. Then the brain sends the signal to move (because it’s not directly you who does it, you do it through the tool, through the brain)
The results is the same, the only difference is it’s not “body moves this way”, but it is “I decided that the body will move this way”.
The tricky part is the free will. You think that this implies there’s no free will. All I’m saying is that there’s free will, but you are not the one having the free will. Simply because you are just an idea of the brain. And thoughts can’t have free will.

It’s basically like this. The brain think in cause and effect, which is a great thing, because that’s how the universe works. Something happens, and from that a lof of other things happen. So when the brain looks at the body, it assumes there has to be something behind it doing the decisions. The body moves, therefore there is something causing it.

Like you said though, it’s complicated, and I’m just trying to plant a seed in your head :-D
Just look, think about it, and try to find out this “you”. Look at it and ask yourself if it is even there.
Meanwhile we can definitely still discuss it, I enjoy it :)

Yep but as with everything in this universe, we assign ‘something’ to be doing the writing and sitting, that ‘something’ is ‘you’ – the entity – if you want to remove the designation ‘you’ from this equation, then you have to remove the designation of ‘brain’ as well – I guess if you want to put the entire existence of this universe into such a template and say that there is nothing, no earth, no sun, just atoms and energy/vibrations resulting in these patterns that we describe as ‘writing’ and ‘sitting’ – which would then not exist as concepts as well – then yes you can say that ‘you’ don’t exist, but that’s just lyrical nonsense which serves no purpose in describing our actual experience.. but I actually don’t think this is what you’re saying.. I just want to point out that saying ‘there is writing / sitting’ is not a better description than saying ‘I am writing / sitting’, the latter is a more precise/better description of the experience happening in our common perception of it.. the “I/you” is the distinction of your existence in relation to the rest of the universe..

I think maybe now I’m understanding what you’re trying to say, but I’m sorry to say it’s completely useless and of no value to the understanding of experience of existence, you’re playing logical philosophy fallacy – yes the “you” that we have in our mind is not the “actual you” as the flower we see is not the flower but an interpretation of the electric signals our brain have received from the photons that our eyes have registred reflecting off of the “actual flower pattern of atoms/vibrations”, therefore to say that the flower we percieve actually doesn’t exist could be defended but really, that’s bringing the discussion of reality to an absurd level ’cause that to me is just reality of experience, otherwise we’re nickpicking at direct experience which to me is just playing in imaginationland.. great fun but to no point other than that, having fun..
You seem hooked on this worn out spiritual enigma that “there is no you” and you’re clearly very intelligent and seem to have constructed an abstract concept that in your mind supports this phrase.. but really, I think if we want to move forward in our understanding of ourselves and this experience called life, we should try to focus on “what is” and not be playing these games of words to accommodate old established beliefs..
Bottomline (as I see it), there’s the entity of you, you control the movements of this entity, in your mind you have a representation of yourself, this representation is your self-awareness if you did not have this representation in your mind you would not be self-aware.. this representation is not “real” in and of itself but it represents something “real” and therefore I would say that this representation exists (because it does, I’m here physically) to me it seems that you are nickpicking and say that because the representation is only that, a representation, it does not exist (which I can’t really argue with logically, but to me the direct link between this representation and experienced reality supports the use of the word exists..)

“The brain comes up with the idea of moving somewhere, but because the self-illusion is so strong, the self immediately assumes it was its idea” – if, as I see it, the self Is the brain then it Did come up with the idea…

Hehe yeah we don’t really seem to be going anywhere here – to me the “me/you” still represents the conscious part of the brain which is making the free-will-choices.. I wonder how you’re experiencing your life if you really believe what you are putting forward, it must be a somewhat weird experience, and I really don’t mean that in any condescending way, just curious.. I don’t know if you’ll feel the need to reply, but I too have enjoyed this talk and respect and accept you to have your view on life..